“Currently, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants every year, with more than 70 percent coming to the country through the process known as “chain migration” whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an UNLIMITED relatives to the U.S. In the next 20 years, the current U.S. legal immigration system is on track to import 15 million new foreign-born voters. Between 7 and 8 million of those foreign-born will arrive in the U.S. through chain migration.” JOHN BINDER

Saturday, October 8, 2016

HILLARY CLINTON'S GLOBAL AGENDA: OPEN BORDERS, ENDLESS HORDES OF ILLEGALS, NO REGULATION OF BANKSTERS and NO-STRINGS BAILOUTS FOR BANKS AHEAD

BLOG: THE ENTIRE REASON FOR AMNESTY IS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED, ERGO, WITH AMNESTY COMES SABOTAGE OF OUR BORDER SECURITY, NO E-VERIFY, NON-ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS PROHIBITING THE EMPLOYMENT OF INVADERS AND NO ID FOR ILLEGALS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT FOR MORE!

The new surge of illegal immigration at the southern border is being driven by the U.S. election and the related debate over whether to ease or tighten immigration laws, according to representatives of border agents and border-state sheriffs. The last few months have seen a dramatic rise in apprehensions of illegal immigrants, on a scale that rivals 2014, when members of both parties agreed it became a humanitarian crisis. That crisis abated in 2015, but the numbers have spiked again, and federal officials have mostly been silent on why. According to border officials, the election is a major factor. They say Donald Trump's threat to build a wall and shut down all illegal immigration is creating an incentive for people to make it to the U.S. before Trump takes over. But they also say the possibility of Hillary Clinton winning creates its own incentive, since many perceive or hope that she might create an amnesty program for illegal immigrants, and hope to be in the U.S. already when that happens."It would make everybody in America poorer—you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country."THE ROAD TO REVOLUTION:What Happened in America
After the Clinton – Trump Debacle

The two main candidates, Democrat
Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump, are the most unpopular political
figures in modern US history, each detested by more than half the population,
each rightly regarded as a self-serving liar. One is a fascist bigot and
demagogue, the other a stooge of Wall Street and the military-intelligence
apparatus.

Leaked Hillary Clinton Speech to Foreign Bank: ‘My Dream Is a Hemispheric Common Market with Open Trade and Open Borders’

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

In closed-door remarks delivered to a foreign bank, Hillary Clinton declared that her “dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.”

This statement from one of Clinton’s private paid speeches was discovered in leaked emails of Clinton’s campaign chair, John Podesta, which were made public by WikiLeaks.

One email, which provided partial transcripts of some of Clinton’s speeches, reads in part:

*Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. *

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]

In her remarks to Banco Itau, Clinton also denounced the idea of putting up barriers to global trade, a statement which will likely raise concerns with grassroots and working-class voters in her own party. “We have to resist protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade,” Clinton said.

Even though it has gone virtually unreported by corporate media, BreitbartNews has extensively documented the Clintons’ longstanding support for “open borders.” Interestingly, as the LosAngelesTimes observed in 2007, the Clinton’s praise for globalization and open borders frequently comes when they are speaking before a wealthy foreign audiences and donors.

In July 2007, Bill Clinton praised the benefits of “open borders” and “easy immigration” while delivering the keynote address at the 16th Telugu Association of North America (TANA) conference in Washington D.C. to a crowd of thousands of Indian Americans. As
the LosAngelesTimesreported at the time, Clinton “drew applause at a conference of 14,000 Indian Americans in Washington as he extolled the benefits of ‘open borders, easy travel, easy immigration.’” It went on to report, “The same day, he headlined a fundraiser at the conference for his wife’s [failed 2008 presidential] campaign.”

In a 2003 speech delivered to Yale University, Bill Clinton called for the establishment of a “global community,” praised the “openness of our borders to immigrants,” and declared that America “has great obligations to open our borders.” Clinton said that he believes the formation a “genuine global community”—complete with an “over-arching system” to regulate it—to be “the great mission of the 21st century.”

The latest WikiLeaks revelation documenting Hillary Clinton’s explicit support for “open borders” may pose unique challenges to her campaign, as it means that for months, Clinton’s campaign has deliberately sought to mislead the American people about her position on immigration.

Clinton’s campaign website promoted material insisting that the “claim that Hillary Clinton supports open borders” is “false”– even though, by Clinton’s own admission, “open borders” is her “dream.”

Clinton’s new pushback against publicly labeling herself as for “open borders” while clearly championing open border policies is perhaps related to the fact that increasing immigration levels is not a popular policy. According to Pew, an overwhelming 83 percent of the American electorate overall would like to see immigration levels frozen or reduced.

Indeed, for months, while Republican nominee Donald Trump has repeatedly made the case that his opponent supports open borders, many in the media have denounced Trump’s assertion as false—without providing any substantive evidence to counter his claim.

Interestingly, these so-called “fact checks” rarely mention how many migrants would be imported into the country under a Hillary Clinton Presidency. While Bill Clinton hasdescribed our current immigration policy as one of “open borders,” his wife has championed policies that would open our borders even further.

For example, the 2013 Gang of Eight bill Clinton supported would have tripled green card issuances—permanently resettling 33 million foreign nationals on green cards in the span of a single decade—and would have doubled foreign guest worker visas to compete for American jobs.

The 2006 Ted Kennedy immigration plan Clinton supported would have more than doubled legal immigration by increasing the number of family-based and employment-based visas.

Clinton’s refugee program, which she outlined in 2015, calls for a 550 percent increase the number of Syrian refugees admitted. If Clinton were to continue this policy throughout her presidency, the U.S. could potentially permanently resettle nearly one million Muslim migrants during the first term of her presidency alone—and all of their children born on American soil would be automatically awarded U.S. citizenship.

The Center for Immigration Studies’ Steve Camarota has projected that, based on the minimal figures Clinton has put forth thus far, Clinton could add 10 million new immigrants to the U.S. during her first term alone – in addition to the 11 million illegal immigrants Clinton has said she plans to amnesty within her first 100 days in office.

Clinton’s primary rival Bernie Sanders has explained how “open borders” is a radical and fringe position supported by wealthy donors, which hurts working Americans. In a 2015 interview with Vox, Sanders denounced open borders as a “Koch brothers proposal” that would essentially amount to “doing away with the concept of a nation state.” Sanders said:

It would make everybody in America poorer—you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.

By Sanders’ argument, by embracing open borders Clinton will “make everybody in America poorer” and has essentially adopted the view that there should be “no United States… [by] doing away with the concept of a nation state.”

This is precisely the concern of populist, nation-state conservatives like Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, who made this very argument. In a USA Today op-ed from May of this year, in which he laid out the case for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, Sessions wrote, “For the first time in a long time, this November will give Americans a clear choice on perhaps the most important issue facing our country and our civilization: whether we remain a nation-state that serves its own people, or whether we slide irrevocably toward a soulless globalism that treats humans as interchangeable widgets in the world market.”

“Forget the arrogance and
corruption -- $153 million in Clinton family speaking fees from 2001, mainly
bribes during her State Department years. Forget the lies, the lies about lies,
and the perjury. Forget the security breaches. Forget enabling America’s most
prominent sexual predator. Forget the trail of bodies stretching from Little
Rock to Benghazi. Forget every scandal from Whitewater to deleted e-mails.
Forget all of it.”

“The watchdogs at Judicial
Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close
coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence
and on to the American dole.” Washington
Times

CLINTON’S PROMISE OF AMNESTY IN A 100 DAYS!

HILLARY CLINTON AND THE CONSPIRACY WITH THE MEXICAN
FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA “THE RACE” TO SURRENDER AMERICA’S BORDERS, DESTROY THE
GOP WITH MILLIONS OF MEX VOTERS AND EXPAND THE MEX WELFARE STATE ON AMERICA’S
BACKS

OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS: THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS SIMPLY GETS IN THE WAY! DESTROY IT!

Pension funds and insurance companies, which are dependent for their financing on investment in long-term government bonds, were particularly adversely affected, with their solvency “threatened by a prolonged period of low interest rates.”

As geo-political and economic tensions mount

IMF warns of record high global debt

By Nick Beams7 October 2016

Eight years after the eruption of the global financial crisis, the conditions are being created for another meltdown of even bigger proportions, amid rising geo-political and economic tensions between the major capitalist powers.

This is the implication of three reports issued by the International Monetary Fund in preparation for its annual meeting, which begins in Washington today. TheWorld Economic Outlookreported lower growth in all the advanced economies, underscoring the lack of a genuine recovery in the global economy, while two financial reports pointed to mounting instability resulting from the injection by central banks of trillions of dollars into the world financial system.

Taken together, the reports point to the underlying economic contradictions that are fuelling a series of crises. These include slowing world trade and rising protectionist measures, the row between the US and the European Union over tax payments by Apple, the move by the US Justice Department to impose a $14 billion penalty on Deutsche Bank, the breakdown in talks on the US-sponsored Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and accusations from politicians in Berlin that the US is waging “economic warfare.”

The increasing instability of the financial system was highlighted in the IMF’s twice-yearlyFiscal Monitorreport issued on Wednesday. It found that debt in the nonfinancial sector of the world economy had doubled in nominal terms since the turn of the century, reaching $152 trillion last year and continuing to rise.

Current debt levels are 225 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP), rising from 200 percent in 2002. The IMF said that while there was no consensus on how much debt was too much, current debt levels, of which two-thirds is privately held, were at a record high.

There was a need for deleveraging, but the current low-growth environment was making “the adjustment very difficult, setting the stage for a vicious feedback loop in which lower growth hampers deleveraging and the debt overhang exacerbates the slowdown.”

The report said the debt overhang problem, characterised as a situation in which the borrower’s debt service liability exceeds its future repayment capacity, “resides squarely within advanced economies’ private sector.”

While the IMF did not make the point, its analysis exposes the claim that too much government spending is the cause of mounting financial problems. According to theFiscal Monitorreport, the easing of restrictions on credit meant that nonfinancial private-sector debt in the major economies increased by 35 percent of GDP in the years leading up to the global financial crisis.

Significantly, there was a rapid rise in household debt in this period. The report did not point to the reasons, but two major factors undoubtedly were the low level of wage increases, forcing increased borrowing, and the surge in house prices in a number of countries, itself a product of credit expansion. The IMF noted that in some countries—Australia, Canada and Singapore—private-sector debt had continued to accumulate at a fast pace.

The report found that public debt, which makes up one-third of the total, had risen from 70 percent of global GDP to 85 percent. But almost half of this increase was a result of low nominal growth. In other words, far from the rise in government debt being the result of “profligate” spending on health, pensions and social services—the mantra of those demanding austerity—its expansion is rooted in the ongoing stagnation following the 2008 financial crisis.

A second financial report,Global Financial Stability, drew out the growing risks to the financial system. It said that while short-term risks had abated since the previous report in April, “the medium-term risks are building.” The continued slowdown in global growth had prompted financial markets to expect a continued period of low inflation, low interest rates and “an even longer delay in normalizing monetary policy.”

It warned, however, that some monetary policies, such as negative interest rates, were “reaching the limits of their effectiveness, and the medium-term side effects of low rates are rising for banks and other financial institutions.”

Pension funds and insurance companies, which are dependent for their financing on investment in long-term government bonds, were particularly adversely affected, with their solvency “threatened by a prolonged period of low interest rates.”

Financial institutions as a whole in the advanced economies faced a “number of cyclical and structural challenges and need to adapt to the new era of low growth and low interest rates.” If these challenges were left unaddressed, it “could undermine financial soundness.”

These problems go to the very heart of the capitalist financial system—the banks. The report stated that weak profitability could “erode banks’ buffers and undermine their ability to support growth.” Even if there were a cyclical recovery in the economy, this would not resolve the problems of low profitability. “Over 25 percent of banks in advanced economies (about $11.7 trillion in assets) would remain weak and face significant structural challenges,” with the problems concentrated in the European and Japanese banking sector.

The mounting financial problems, while concentrated in the advanced economies, are not confined to them. The report found that in emerging market economies, around 11 percent of corporate debt, over $400 billion, was held by firms with “weak repayment capacity.”

High debt levels and excess capacity made it difficult for these companies to “grow out of the problem” which left them “sensitive to downside external or domestic developments,” and if interest rates started to rise and earnings fell, “such a scenario would exhaust bank capital buffers in some emerging markets.”

Another area of concern was China, where “continued rapid credit growth… and expanding shadow banking products pose mounting risks to financial stability.” The rapidly growing financial system “is becoming increasingly leveraged and interconnected, and a variety of innovative vehicles and products are adding to the complexity.” Corporate debt at risk remained high and “underlying risks from non-loan credit exposures add to these challenges.”

The three reports point to the deepening contradictions of the global capitalist system. The IMF has insisted that in the absence of any cyclical rise of the economy, monetary policy alone cannot bring about a recovery, and government infrastructure and other spending is necessary to provide a boost.

But such spending would increase debt and would depend on interest rates remaining low. Ultra-low interest rates, however, are increasingly undermining the stability of banks and other financial institutions, creating the conditions for another financial crisis, which will further inflame the already high level of geo-political and economic conflict.

In Hillary's America, D'Souza documents how Democrats transitioned from pro-slavery to pro-enslavement; the longstanding Democratic political war against women; how Hillary Clinton's political mentor was, literally, a cold-blooded gangster, Saul Alinsky; how the Clintons and other Democrats see foreign policy not in terms of national interest, but in terms of personal profit; and how Democratic-controlled cities have turned into hotbeds of crime and corruption. American Thinker interviewed him about his latest projects

OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS:

You were wondering how many jobs went to illegals and how well Obama’s crony banksters have done???

The sputtering economic recovering under President Obama, the last to follow a major recession, has fallen way short of the average recovery and ranks as the worst since the 1930s Great Depression, according to a new report.

Had the recovery under Obama been the average of the 11 since the Depression, according to the report, family incomes would be $17,000 higher, six million fewer Americans would be in poverty, and there would be six million more jobs.

"More than
728,000 illegal immigrants have been shielded from being deported
and granted work
permits through President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive amnesty program, according
to the Migration Policy Institute."

HILLARY AND OBAMA'S CRONY BANKSTERS:

"In her secret speeches, Clinton also reiterated her support

for the Obama administration’s policy that the banks would

continue to be allowed to “regulate” themselves. In a secret

speech to the Goldman Sachs Alternative Investments

Symposium on October 24, 2013, Clinton declared: “The

people that know the industry better than anybody are the

people who work in the industry.” Translation: “The Obama

administration and I will do nothing to halt your illegal

practices or impede the flow of the world’s money into your

pockets.”

Secret Clinton speeches and emails reveal systematic corruption

By Tom Carter 10 October 2016

In a secret speech at securities law firm

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San Diego

on September 4, 2014, Democratic Party

presidential candidate Hillary Clinton

bragged that she “represented and worked

with” so many on Wall Street and “did all I

could to make sure they continued to

prosper.”

In another secret speech, Clinton admitted that the policy she advocated with respect to Syria would involve mass killings of civilians. “To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defenses, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk—you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians,” she stated.

Secret documents and emails containing these and other revelations were published by Wikileaks and The Intercept in recent days. The latter remarks were revealed as the United States threatens to escalate its military intervention in Syria under the pretext of protecting civilian lives.

In one remarkably Machiavellian speech,

Clinton frankly admitted that she has “both a

public and private position” on certain policy

issues, and that she only reveals the “private

position” when she is engaging in “back room

discussions.” In other words, she consciously

lies to and deceives the public, pursuing an

entirely different agenda in secret

negotiations within the American

establishment.

“If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least,” Clinton said.

Perhaps one example of this distinction is provided by Clinton’s public and private positions with respect to Syria. While the US State Department uses the pretext of civilian casualties in Syria to ratchet up tensions with Russia, Clinton’s “private position” acknowledges that her own plan will “kill a lot of Syrians.”

Other emails confirm the corrupt ties between the Clinton

campaign and the media, which involve undisclosed

payments to pundits appearing on cable news programs. An

internal list of contemptuously-labeled media “surrogates”

contains those media personalities that could be relied upon

to produce favorable coverage of the campaign.

The list of the “surrogates” deemed “reliable” by the Clinton campaign includes

Rose, George Stephanopolous and others. A similarly incriminating list of “progressive

helpers” includes Judd Legum of ThinkProgress and the “Correct The Record” Super

PAC run by David Brock.

Other documents published by The Intercept reveal secret “off-the-record” cocktail parties held by the Clinton campaign that were attended by journalists from ABC, Bloomberg, CBS, CNN, the Daily Beast, GPG, Huffington Post, MSNBC, NBC, The New Yorker, the New York Times, People, Politico, Vice and Vox.

Invitees of these cocktail parties, where the reporters were briefed on how to present the Clinton campaign to the population in the most favorable light, apparently included Diane Sawyer (ABC), George Stephanopolous (ABC), Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) and Gail Collins ( New York Times ), among many others. The publication of these documents by The Intercept should forever reduce the credibility of these “news organizations” and “journalists” to zero.

The Clinton campaign responded to these revelations with its standard answer to all exposures of corruption and criminality on the part of the Democratic Party or Clinton personally—blame it on Russia. Clinton spokesman Glen Caplin declared that the revelations “removed any reasonable doubt that the Kremlin has weaponized WikiLeaks to meddle in our election and benefit Donald Trump’s candidacy.”

The response of former Democratic Party presidential

contender and so-called “socialist” Bernie Sanders to these

revelations stands out as particularly craven and absurd.

Sanders—who once rallied support based on his

denunciations of the “billionaire class,” but who now

functions as a Clinton campaign sideshow—reaffirmed his

support for Clinton in a statement released Saturday:

“Whatever Secretary Clinton may or may not have said

behind closed doors on Wall Street, I am determined to

implement the agenda of the Democratic Party platform,

which was agreed to by her campaign.”

During the Democratic Party primary elections, Sanders made an issue of the millions

of dollars in “speaking fees” Hillary and Bill Clinton had accumulated, which currently

totals around $153 million. Exposing the fraudulent nature of his entire presidential

bid, Sanders now admits that he will support Clinton no matter what she said or did.

Of course, only the very naive could believe for a moment that the enormous “speaking fees” accumulated by Clinton and her husband were paid for the speeches themselves. Instead, the designation of these sums as “speaking fees” more probably represents what is known in the criminal underworld as money-laundering. In other words, the corrupt flow of cash to the Clintons for services dutifully rendered to the financial aristocracy was disguised as “speaking fees” for taxation and accounting purposes.

In one secret Wall Street speech, Clinton

candidly admitted that she is “far removed”

from the middle-class interests that she has

sought to rally behind her campaign,

reassuring her rich patrons that her lifestyle

and social outlook more closely mirror theirs.

Clinton stated that she is “kind of far removed because the life I’ve lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven’t forgotten it.”

In a secret speech at Goldman Sachs on October 24, 2013, Clinton brushed off the conception that rampant corruption, speculation and criminality at Wall Street had led to the economic crash of 2008. Defending Wall Street, Clinton claimed that all this was a “misunderstanding.”

Speaking as though she was an attorney retained to confidentially advise all billionaires regarding their interests, Clinton pointed with concern to the perception “that somehow the game is rigged” as well as the way that hatred of Wall Street was becoming “politicized.”

In the same secret speech to Deutsche Bank on October 7, 2014, Clinton pointed to popular hostility to Wall Street as “a problem for all of us”—using the word “us” to refer to financial aristocrats and their political servants. She reassured the bankers in attendance that any measures or regulations implemented by Congress or the Obama administration would be designed to restore “public trust” in the financial system. In other words, they would be toothless and they would leave the privileges and prerogatives of the financial elite intact.

In her secret speeches, Clinton also reiterated her support for the Obama administration’s policy that the banks would continue to be allowed to “regulate” themselves. In a secret speech to the Goldman Sachs Alternative Investments Symposium on October 24, 2013, Clinton declared: “The people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry.” Translation: “The Obama administration and I will do nothing to halt your illegal practices or impede the flow of the world’s money into your pockets.”

Behind closed doors, Clinton also spoke frankly of her need for vast sums of money to fund her campaign. “I think I raised $250 million or some such enormous amount,” she said, describing her previous presidential bid, “and in the last campaign President Obama raised $1.1 billion.” In that speech, made to General Electric’s Global Leadership Meeting in Boca Raton, Florida on January 6, 2014, Clinton admitted that the US Supreme Court’s infamous Citizens United decision ushered in a “wild west” period of unlimited corporate bribes in elections.

Documents released by The Intercept on Saturday detail the corrupt relations between sections of the media and the Hillary Clinton campaign, with reporters jostling each other to present themselves as the most loyal and reliable outlets for a calculated “leak” of exclusive information. “One January 2015 strategy document,” reported The Intercept, “singled out reporter Maggie Haberman, then of Politico, now covering the election for the New York Times, as a ‘friendly journalist’ who has ‘teed up’ stories for them in the past and ‘never disappointed’ them.”

The emails released over recent days appear to bolster allegations in a lawsuit filed Thursday by the campaign finance watchdog group Campaign Legal Center, which claims that the Clinton campaign flouted federal election law by coordinating activity with a “super PAC” run by David Brock, which contributed $6 million to the Clinton campaign. The allegations are serious and have the potential to trigger criminal prosecutions.

In an internal Clinton campaign email released by Wikileaks, Research Director Tony Carrk urged staff to “give an extra scrub” to the transcripts of Wall Street speeches before any portions could be publicly released.

A Mexican illegal alien allegedly raped a girl in Kansas in September after being deported ten times in the past six years alone, according to reports.

Tomas Martinez-Maldonado, reportedly born around 1978, allegedly raped his child victim on September 27.

“ICE said in an email that Martinez-Maldonado, a citizen of Mexico, has been deported back to Mexico from the U.S. 10 times since 2010,” the Kansas City Star reports. “ICE also said he has a 2013 federal felony conviction for illegal re-entry into the U.S., making him an enforcement priority for ICE, which means the agency would take custody of him when his case in Kansas is completed.”

Local outlet the Hay Post reports that Martinez-Maldonado allegedly raped the 12-year-old on a Greyhound bus.

Illegal aliens from nations including Mexico commit sex crimes against children in the U.S. at an alarming rate. Breitbart News has extensively covered the disturbing trend: